Dietary Laws

[Ryan]

Your contention was that "declared to be clean" was put in there by the translators and is not in any of the early manuscripts does not have any support.
I used the Greek word to demonstrate what is exactly, and there is NO variant on that word in ANY manuscript. That is what the Critical Apparatus clearly stated.
The source you used is clearly fabricating words about what the Koine Greek actually says. and BTW, I did not see that in the link you provided.

Yes you are correct, "catharsis" or "katharizon" from Strongs does mean to make clean or cleanse, but the entire verse does not even speak to kosher foods as we know they were living in a world where "food" was only biblical, dietary fair. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus throughout his ministry of anything. They were trying to trap him with the tradition of washing their hands which was not biblical. If Jesus declared swine or any other unclean animals now clean, aye carumba, everything after Mark 7:19 would look completely different as Jesus would be changing the Law that he spoke to Moses which would have been heretical.

Mark 7:19 "because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats." - Taken from the Youngs Literal Translation

Mark 7:19 "19 G3754 Because G1531 it entereth [G5736] G3756 not G1519 into G846 his G2588 heart G235 , but G1519 into G2836 the belly G2532 , and G1607 goeth out [G5736] G1519 into G856 the draught G2511 , purging [G5723] G3956 all G1033 meats?" - KJV with the concordance value attached for referencing.

If you follow along with the concordance, this passage is talking about waste management so to speak as the draught is the bowels. This ties into the earlier passage that the Pharisees were giving them a hard time about washing their hands and making themselves impure. But Jesus was talking if there was any impurities on their hands, the human body will take and flush those impurities out.

How can you say that in print? You are making a statement that defies logic because you are essentially saying that "eating has nothing to do with diet".

I meant Peter's vision had nothing to do with changing or affirming a change in the biblical dietary laws.

Why are you bringing this stuff up? Did you know that the NT was written in Greek, NOT Hebrew? Did you also know that Peter was about to go out and eat with Roman Gentiles. So what is the purpose in bringing up something about a Hebrew culture?"

That was where Peter came from. He was a Jew who knew what "sacrifice and eat" meant. One could argue what language it was written in, but the point is he was a Jew with a Hebrew mindset.

Please refrain from posting things which are clearly worded wrong. Again, I ask you from where did this stuff come?

No what I wrote is accurate to my thoughts. I have about 20-30 different source materials I use. If you really want to know, I can PM you all my source material.

This is extraneous to the issue. The issue is killing and eating animals, and NOT using them as a sacrifice to the Lord. Besides that, the sacrifice of animals was done away with by the Atonement of Jesus Christ

Maybe this isn't the place, but Paul would have had to of sacrificed 5 rams plus other items he paid for the 4 other people to complete the Nazarite vow.

RATS!

I accidentally erased a lot of stuff.

Gotta go. I am tired

Hate when that happens. Especially with a killer thought that would have put a nail into the coffin so to speak on an idea.

 

[Ryan]

My point was that Peter was not necessarily referring to any passage(s) and he need not be. The NT cannot be more clear that believers are no longer under the Law, so that alone immediately rules out any idea that Peter had the dietary restrictions of the Law in mind.

What is wrong with just understanding that Peter borrowed that saying from the Law without any implication that we are to follow the dietary restrictions?

What defines one being "holy" or "set apart" is in the Law. Diet is one small aspect of it, but one nonetheless. Is it a salvation issue having to go to bed and think whether eating ham would lose someone's salvation, absolutely not. It is just an area that I feel all believers should take a closer look at and whether it speaks to them, myself included. Just take these thoughts expressed here, chew on it, swallow it, bring it back up and chew it over some more, if you like it swallow it, if not spit it out. Plain as simple as that. Chew the cud so to speak.

 

[Free]

To say that all meat is good for food is ignoring 1Tim 4:5, Paul says in this verse that only the meat sanctified by the word of God is food. Now where do we find scripture that sanctifies (sets apart) meat?

Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

And yet, as I have pointed out several times, believers are not under the Law as the NT makes very clear in many places, with Paul even saying that it is a different gospel to teach otherwise. Not only do we see that in the NT, we see that Jesus declares are food clean, which Peter's vision then confirms, Paul makes a couple of statements that all is clean.

There is no appeal to the OT that can be made here.

Yes it is a discussion about food. All things are not food and the Designer and Creator of the human body knows what is food for it and what is not. When you apply verses outside of the overall framework of God's word, you come up with silly sayings like

1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

means all animal flesh is food. The reason I asked about fugu is that it is unclean and can kill you. Are you telling me to apply 1Cor 10:27 to eating blowfish? I think I shall pass.

The implication is clear and is consistent with what is found in the rest of the NT regarding the matter--all foods are clean.

 

[Free]

What defines one being "holy" or "set apart" is in the Law. Diet is one small aspect of it, but one nonetheless. Is it a salvation issue having to go to bed and think whether eating ham would lose someone's salvation, absolutely not. It is just an area that I feel all believers should take a closer look at and whether it speaks to them, myself included. Just take these thoughts expressed here, chew on it, swallow it, bring it back up and chew it over some more, if you like it swallow it, if not spit it out. Plain as simple as that. Chew the cud so to speak.

In the context of the NT being "holy" or "sanctified" has nothing to do with the Law.

 

[John 8:32]

Please do not adulterate Scripture by adding words that are NOT there.

You are ignoring scripture that does not agree with your position...

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul was not discussing a space shuttle here, he was teaching on creature to eat, in other words meat.

You are practicing eisegesis here.

Out of Context, and from the Old Covenant, which was a school teacher.

Tell that to Paul...

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

What scriptures did Timothy have from a child?

This is another example of absurdities which people use to support an untenable position. Fugu is a Japanese delicacy. So in order to establish that fugu was intended in this statement, you need to establish the existence of a Christian Japanese culture in the Mediterranean basin.

Then to say the dietary laws are no longer to be practiced in the USA, please establish the existence of an American culture in the Mediterranean basin. The principles apply across time and geography.

Equally absurd isthe example of eating ground glass or arsenic. Both glass and arsenic were known commodities since the days of the Pharoahs. But in order for your analogy to be evvective, it needs to be true. So you therefore need to establish any civilization that considered both arsenic and ground glass as food.

Why? With your myopic vision of just a few scriptures, you should be able to apply 1Cor 10:27 to any situation without any overriding considerations. After all, the dietary laws and statements by Paul in other areas set overall guidelines and should be harmonized with what is said in Acts 10

All this stuff you are throwing up seems purposed to obfuscate the fact that EVERYTHING considered food by another culture was permissible to eat for the Christians.

Again, then, have a steaming dish of fugu, just hope that you are not one of the casualties that occur each year.

From where do you get this sort of nonsense? I ask because the stuff you post in defense of your opposition to what the clear words of what Scripture teaches reflects upon your belief system. If I were to hazard a guess, I would be inclined to state that your sources to support this meat issue are not in keeping with the rest of what the historically orthodox church teaches.

Seriously, and without any snarkyness involved, I ask you that if your position were indeed true, then why is there no mention of it in ANY of the Ecumenical Creeds of the Church, including the Apostles Creed? I ask that because since the beginning of the church, and in Scripture, there are creeds. They are minimal standards for Christians One early example is Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. That is a simple two step plan of salvation, which results in the promise, "You shall be saved".

From what I see in your postings here, it would be your desire to add something to this creed to make it read thus: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, and abstain from eating meats, thou shalt be saved. "

If I am wrong in this understanding of your theology, then please explain what exactly you do mean.

Thank you

First of all, it is not my theology, Peter's example is one of metaphor and does not concern diet. Pauls statements when put together (The Bible is additive, not subtractive like you wish. One does not simply ignore the scripture that does not support one's postiion.) he does not teach contrary to the dietary laws.

 

[By Grace]

Originally Posted by John 8:32
To say that all meat is good for food is ignoring 1Tim 4:5, Paul says in this verse that only the meat sanctified by the word of God is food. Now where do we find scripture that sanctifies (sets apart) meat?

Please do not adulterate Scripture by adding words that are NOT there.

You are ignoring scripture that does not agree with your position...

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul was not discussing a space shuttle here, he was teaching on creature to eat, in other words meat.

You are practicing eisegesis here.

Please demonstrate where the words YOU wrote, and I made bold red appear in Scripture. THAT is adulterating Scripture when you place something that is not in the text into your version of the text.

Tell that to Paul...
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
What scriptures did Timothy have from a child?

And then please tell me what the subject of the context from where the verse was taken is. Surely, it is NOT food, but Scripture, itself:

2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
​

Notice that Scripture is mentioned or alluded to three times in these four verses

Then to say the dietary laws are no longer to be practiced in the USA, please establish the existence of an American culture in the Mediterranean basin. The principles apply across time and geography.

Evidently my point about fugu was not understood. Since you brought it up, and it is an untrue analogy, it falls flat.

Equally absurd is the example of eating ground glass or arsenic. Both glass and arsenic were known commodities since the days of the Pharaohs. But in order for your analogy to be effective, it needs to be true. So you therefore need to establish any civilization that considered both arsenic and ground glass as food.

Why? With your myopic vision of just a few scriptures, you should be able to apply 1Cor 10:27 to any situation without any overriding considerations. After all, the dietary laws and statements by Paul in other areas set overall guidelines and should be harmonized with what is said in Acts 10

It is you who brought up the issue of ground glass and arsenic, not me. If you do not like your analogies, then you need not post them.

Again, then, have a steaming dish of fugu, just hope that you are not one of the casualties that occur each year.

Irrelevant and absurd

First of all, it is not my theology, Peter's example is one of metaphor and does not concern diet. Pauls statements when put together (The Bible is additive, not subtractive like you wish. One does not simply ignore the scripture that does not support one's postiion.) he does not teach contrary to the dietary laws.

For the fourth time, I ask you to publicly demonstrate your sources for these distortions of the Bible that you post here.

 

[eddif]

Hebrews 1:1
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In the OT an ox is an ox.
In the NT an ox is more about a preacher.

In the OT diet is food
In the NT diet is more Word

First the physical then the Spiritual.

You must eat my body and drink my blood is sure more beyond the physical (in one sense).

eddif

So let's think about the NT diet, all is clean? Or is the pure Word of God clean? Do you think maybe that perhaps the clean and unclean pointed to more than just meat? Or does it matter, any ole word will do? All roads lead to heaven? Maybe there is more to clean and unclean than what you stick in your mouth...

You have a pretty good concept of the Word needing to be clean. I agree. I would not however just go immediately back to the OT and establish the diet conversation as the main topic of conversation.​

Diet in the OT was absolutely about food. There is no doubt to me that this was true. Hidden in the symbolism of food, is the idea that The Word of God is a diet also (not live by food alone but every word that comes out of the mouth of God).

Then​

The word is made flesh and dwells amoung Men (Jesus full of Grace and Mercy)​

So​

Ultimately it is a discussion about eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus.​

Types and shadows, symbols are all pointing to something. The symbol is not the reality it is the shadow. I do not believe in tredding underfoot the symbols, but I do believe in elevating the reality. (fancy usless talk in one sense, but types, shadows, symbols are all good bible words, at least to ignorant Mississippi folks).​

I Corinthians 9:11​

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

I do not believe you should start muzzling oxen because of the NT passage. I do believe that you might say (oh I see--the oxen of the OT were a symbol of the NT pastor receiving wages). For our sakes was the information hidden in OT law. It was not to stress diet the diet of the law, but the diet of the Spirit is what is of the highest concern.

Of course I am not Jew in some folks minds.
Romans 2:14
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

I am a grafted in person.

I Believe in a Jewish Jesus that died for Jews and Gentiles. I have a part of the law inside myself (somehow supernaturally).

I am not completly divorced from the law, but I do see what the law points to,

And since this ox thing is written for our learning-- IMHO-- I would say that all the OT dieting is but a shadow of the NT eating of the Clean Words (Jesus).

Jesus is our reality. OT dieting is the shadow. For a time all that was shown was the diet, but finally types and shadows were explained to us through the NT writings and some (at times) veiled sayings of Jesus.

eddif

 

[WIP]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[By Grace]

For the fourth time, I ask you to publicly demonstrate your sources for these distortions of the Bible that you post here.

Thank you RYAN for providing that in a PM

 

[By Grace]

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

G37
ἁγιάζω
hagiazō
hag-ee-ad'-zo
From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctify.

What meats are sanctified by the word of God?

Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

and continues through verse 47

Are you perhaps coming from a Messianic Jewish perspective?
I ask because understanding your perspectives can help me address what you say more accurately.

While I know that you are quoting from Strong's, you need to cite your sources. Plagiarism is a plague on the Internet, and it creates many problems for forums like this where the owners and admins are responsible for the contents, but posters can post and violate the plagiarism laws. It CAN result in lawyers being involved.

 

[John 8:32]

Are you perhaps coming from a Messianic Jewish perspective?
I ask because understanding your perspectives can help me address what you say more accurately.

While I know that you are quoting from Strong's, you need to cite your sources. Plagiarism is a plague on the Internet, and it creates many problems for forums like this where the owners and admins are responsible for the contents, but posters can post and violate the plagiarism laws. It CAN result in lawyers being involved.

I assumed that seeing the Gxxxx or Hxxxx would automatically reveal that it came form Strong's, but yes I am quoting Strong's. As far as the other question, I am not coming from a Messianic Jew standpoint. The point I am making is...

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The New Testament was never meant to cast the entirety of the Old Testament out and never be used again. The New Testament builds on and deepens the OT.

Frankly, I have no idea what you refer to when you say that quoting...

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

adulterates scripture. How is it adulterating scripture to say that the meats (Notice verse 3) are the ones that are set apart by God's word (vs. 5 - sanctified by the word of God). Now the only place that meats are set apart is Lev 11 and Deut 14.

I do not understand your comment.

 

[By Grace]

I assumed that seeing the Gxxxx or Hxxxx would automatically reveal that it came form Strong's, but yes I am quoting Strong's. As far as the other question, I am not coming from a Messianic Jew standpoint. The point I am making is...

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The New Testament was never meant to cast the entirety of the Old Testament out and never be used again. The New Testament builds on and deepens the OT.

Frankly, I have no idea what you refer to when you say that quoting...

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

adulterates scripture. How is it adulterating scripture to say that the meats (Notice verse 3) are the ones that are set apart by God's word (vs. 5 - sanctified by the word of God). Now the only place that meats are set apart is Lev 11 and Deut 14.

I do not understand your comment.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

Here is what you originally posted, and my response:

Originally Posted by John 8:32
To say that all meat is good for food is ignoring 1Tim 4:5, Paul says in this verse that only the meat sanctified by the word of God is food. Now where do we find scripture that sanctifies (sets apart) meat?

Please do not adulterate Scripture by adding words that are NOT there.

Originally Posted by John 8:32


You are ignoring scripture that does not agree with your position...

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul was not discussing a space shuttle here, he was teaching on creature to eat, in other words meat.

You are practicing eisegesis here.

Please demonstrate where the words YOU wrote, and I made bold red appear in Scripture. THAT is adulterating Scripture when you place something that is not in the text into your version of the text.

What I was objecting to was your addition of the phrase "only the meat" into a section where Paul is writing about giving a blessing, or "saying grace" over the food we eat.

Please consider the verses preceding what you posted to get a better context:

1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth
​

Paul used the word "hypocrisy" to describe the practice of people forbidding others the joys of eating what was placed before them. In other words, as long as the eaters gave thanks to God for what they eat, the meat was considered "sanctified". To do contrary to that was in the view of Paul hypocrisy.

To my mind, it seemed that you were being hyper literal.

But I am really wondering about your position regarding food. This baffles me as to the position you are taking when you posted this:

Originally Posted by John 8:32
So let's think about the NT diet, all is clean? Or is the pure Word of God clean? Do you think maybe that perhaps the clean and unclean pointed to more than just meat? Or does it matter, any ole word will do? All roads lead to heaven? Maybe there is more to clean and unclean than what you stick in your mouth...

Is this some sort of an Adventist position, or what? I ask because for various reasons they ask that their adherents be vegetarian, take pride in their "salvation by vegetarian" theology, and are quick to condemn others who are not as "perfect" as they are.

That has been my experience on several boards with those people, and if you are, then we must involve the administrators because without guidance from them, both of us could easily violate the purposes of this fine board.

It is important to understand from where the other person comes so we will not become like an apologetics site here.

 

[handy]

John 8:32, I think where the blurring comes is from focusing on "by the word of God" and automatically assuming that is referring to only Leviticus 11 and Deut 14, all the while ignoring the every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if by thanksgiving.

As far as every meat being sanctified by the word of God, that "word of God" may very well be Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

Just as Genesis 9 predates the formal Law given to Moses, so 1 Tim post dates the Law that we are told, (many times Romans 10, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2 just to name a few) that Christians are not under.

The only dietary law that both predates and post dates the Law of Moses is that we are not to consume the blood of the animal.

 

[John 8:32]

John 8:32, I think where the blurring comes is from focusing on "by the word of God" and automatically assuming that is referring to only Leviticus 11 and Deut 14, all the while ignoring the every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if by thanksgiving.

As far as every meat being sanctified by the word of God, that "word of God" may very well be Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant."

Just as Genesis 9 predates the formal Law given to Moses, so 1 Tim post dates the Law that we are told, (many times Romans 10, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2 just to name a few) that Christians are not under.

The only dietary law that both predates and post dates the Law of Moses is that we are not to consume the blood of the animal.

Well, actually this predates Gen 9...

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Clean and unclean were well know before the flood.

The point is that there are deeper spiritual lessons to be learned from the dietary laws than just what is fit to put in one's mouth.

 

[Ryan]

The point is that there are deeper spiritual lessons to be learned from the dietary laws than just what is fit to put in one's mouth.

Yes this. There is a spiritual component part to it.

 

[handy]

Well, actually this predates Gen 9...

Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Clean and unclean were well know before the flood.

The point is that there are deeper spiritual lessons to be learned from the dietary laws than just what is fit to put in one's mouth.

The clean and unclean animals brought onto the ark were not for food. Animals were not given for food until after Noah disembarked.

Two of every kind of animals were brought onto the ark for the saving of the species. Seven kinds of the clean animals were brought on the ark so that Noah could follow through with sacrifices and offerings, and yet still maintain the species.

All of this is clearly a diversion from the main point, which is that certainly after Noah disembarked, God gave ALL the animals to mankind as food. If God only wanted the "clean" animals to be consumed, He would have made that clear. Let's not make restrictions when God does not.

 

[handy]

Yes this. There is a spiritual component part to it.

The spiritual component to the dietary laws is that, once the Law came into place as a means of grace (but only in the tutorial sense), God commanded that only those animals fit for sacrifice could be consumed. There was never a commandment prior to the Law about only certain animals being able to be eaten...just that the life's blood of the animal could not be consumed.

But, since the Law was, in essence, a tutor of God's saving grace (fulfilled in Christ), the consumption of only clean animals (animals set aside for sacrifice) points towards communion, where in we partake in God's ultimate sacrifice, that of the Body and Blood of His Son. We partake of God's ultimate "dietary law" of eating "clean" when we partake of communion.

 

[Ryan]

The clean and unclean animals brought onto the ark were not for food. Animals were not given for food until after Noah disembarked.

Genesis 4:2 "Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."
Hi Handy, welcome to this discussion. What was the purpose then of Abel being a keeper of flocks then? It could not have been solely to raise animals as sacrifices to the Lord then.

Two of every kind of animals were brought onto the ark for the saving of the species. Seven kinds of the clean animals were brought on the ark so that Noah could follow through with sacrifices and offerings, and yet still maintain the species..

Yes they were to follow through with sacrifices, but I am sure Noah and his family were starving and they had to eat. That's why there were 14 each of the clean animals, and only 2 of the unclean animals.

All of this is clearly a diversion from the main point, which is that certainly after Noah disembarked, God gave ALL the animals to mankind as food. If God only wanted the "clean" animals to be consumed, He would have made that clear. Let's not make restrictions when God does not.

Genesis 6:5 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continual"
What was evil then? Even though it was not recorded in our Bible, God had to of made clear to Adam and Eve what was right and what was not. Although there were no recorded instructions in the Bible before Cain and Abel of offering a sacrifice to the Lord, they still did it anyways. One was acceptable, the other wasn't. They were obviously taught or learned you only bring and offer the best to the Lord. But maybe that's another conversation for another thread.

The spiritual component to the dietary laws is that, once the Law came into place as a means of grace (but only in the tutorial sense), God commanded that only those animals fit for sacrifice could be consumed. There was never a commandment prior to the Law about only certain animals being able to be eaten...just that the life's blood of the animal could not be consumed.

But, since the Law was, in essence, a tutor of God's saving grace (fulfilled in Christ), the consumption of only clean animals (animals set aside for sacrifice) points towards communion, where in we partake in God's ultimate sacrifice, that of the Body and Blood of His Son. We partake of God's ultimate "dietary law" of eating "clean" when we partake of communion.

I believe that once God said it, he meant it for eternity plus a day. I don't buy into Law vs. Grace false dichotomy. Grace always abounded pre and post crucifixion. But maybe that's another topic for another thread as well. Let's talk sausage!

 

[handy]

Genesis 4:2 "Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."
Hi Handy, welcome to this discussion. What was the purpose then of Abel being a keeper of flocks then? It could not have been solely to raise animals as sacrifices to the Lord then.

For sacrifices yes, but I would also imagine for the wool. I'm sure the animal skins God made for Adam and Eve were rather temporary clothing (and there's a lot that is spiritual about those skins as well!;)) I'm sure the flocks provided much wool and perhaps even leather for the family's clothing needs.

Yes they were to follow through with sacrifices, but I am sure Noah and his family were starving and they had to eat. That's why there were 14 each of the clean animals, and only 2 of the unclean animals.

I'm sure that Noah had placed all the food needed for his family and for all the rest of the animals on the ark...which would be vegetables, fruits, nuts and grasses. There is no record of any other kind of food for either man or animal from Genesis 1:29-31 until Genesis 9.

Genesis 6:5 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continual"
What was evil then? Even though it was not recorded in our Bible, God had to of made clear to Adam and Eve what was right and what was not. Although there were no recorded instructions in the Bible before Cain and Abel of offering a sacrifice to the Lord, they still did it anyways. One was acceptable, the other wasn't. They were obviously taught or learned you only bring and offer the best to the Lord. But maybe that's another conversation for another thread.

Quite possibly, because I have to admit, I'm not sure of your point here.

I heard once a pretty good sermon about how the problem between Cain and Abel would most likely have been because Cain, a farmer, needed to go to Abel, a shepherd, in order to have a proper sacrifice. The pastor theorized that there were long standing issues between the brothers (as evidenced by the murder) and Cain didn't want to go to Abel so offered up an unacceptable sacrifice instead. Clearly just theory, since the Bible doesn't record any of this, but it was interesting.

I believe that once God said it, he meant it for eternity plus a day. I don't buy into Law vs. Grace false dichotomy. Grace always abounded pre and post crucifixion. But maybe that's another topic for another thread as well. Let's talk sausage!

Mmmm, sausage! (Jimmy Dean Premium!)

I don't necessarily believe that there is a dichotomy between Grace and Law, the Law was provided as a means of grace, one that was tutorial in nature. However, the Law did have a specific purpose and now that Jesus has come, that purpose is fulfilled. To try to "go back" and keep ourselves under the Law is to ignore not only it's purpose, but Christ's as well.

 

[Ryan]

For sacrifices yes, but I would also imagine for the wool. I'm sure the animal skins God made for Adam and Eve were rather temporary clothing (and there's a lot that is spiritual about those skins as well!;)) I'm sure the flocks provided much wool and perhaps even leather for the family's clothing needs..

I will assert he rose flocks for food, as Cain tilled the land for food. There wasn't a thriving economy yet for wool products.

I'm sure that Noah had placed all the food needed for his family and for all the rest of the animals on the ark...which would be vegetables, fruits, nuts and grasses. There is no record of any other kind of food for either man or animal from Genesis 1:29-31 until Genesis 9.

Quite possibly, because I have to admit, I'm not sure of your point here.

My implication is Adam, Eve and his lineage already knew what was clean and unclean as God revealed that to them. As Noah was commanded about the clean and unclean animals. Even though it wasn't specifically mentioned till Genesis 7, Noah still knew what was clean and unclean. Prior to that, even though it wasn't revealed in the Bible, the assumption is they already had knowledge of that through God revealing it to earlier generations. That was my point about Genesis 6:5. The world was evil continuously, even though it wasn't codified yet in the Mosaic Law, didn't mean God didn't reveal himself to man about his expectations.

2 Peter 2:5 "and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly"
Noah was a preacher of righteousness that God revealed to Noah to turn back from the people's evil ways. Although murder, stealing, adultery, immorality wasn't codified in a Bible, didn't mean that God didn't reveal it to man. Just like the dietary stuff, although it wasn't written on stone yet (or maybe it was?), God revealed it to man even though it isn't mentioned in the Bible until Genesis. Hope that is clear.

I heard once a pretty good sermon about how the problem between Cain and Abel would most likely have been because Cain, a farmer, needed to go to Abel, a shepherd, in order to have a proper sacrifice. The pastor theorized that there were long standing issues between the brothers (as evidenced by the murder) and Cain didn't want to go to Abel so offered up an unacceptable sacrifice instead. Clearly just theory, since the Bible doesn't record any of this, but it was interesting.

I would counter just solely that grain offerings were an acceptable sacrifice in the Lord's sight in Leviticus 2:1 "‘Now when anyone presents a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour, and he shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it" One argument is Cain didn't bring the "best" of his offerings, whereas Abel did. Another one is Cain's heart wasn't in it as his reaction further in the passage indicates there may have been an attitude problem with his heart.

Mmmm, sausage! (Jimmy Dean Premium!).

mmmm...bacon. Turkey bacon...

I don't necessarily believe that there is a dichotomy between Grace and Law, the Law was provided as a means of grace, one that was tutorial in nature. However, the Law did have a specific purpose and now that Jesus has come, that purpose is fulfilled. To try to "go back" and keep ourselves under the Law is to ignore not only it's purpose, but Christ's as well.

The Law as a means of grace is the implication it is a salvation by works. Is that what you meant, or am I misunderstanding you?